Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To conduct a meta-analysis of studies investigating discrepancy rates and clinical impact of imaging secondary interpretations and to identify factors influencing these rates. METHODS:EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched for original research investigations reporting discrepancy rates for secondary interpretations performed by radiologists for imaging examinations initially interpreted at other institutions. Two reviewers extracted study information and assessed study quality. Meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS:Twenty-nine studies representing a total of 12,676 imaging secondary interpretations met inclusion criteria; 19 of these studies provided data specifically for oncologic imaging examinations. Primary risks of bias included availability of initial interpretations, other clinical information, and reference standard before the secondary interpretation. The overall discrepancy rate of secondary interpretations compared with primary interpretations was 32.2%, including a 20.4% discrepancy rate for major findings. Secondary interpretations were management changing in 18.6% of cases. Among discrepant interpretations with an available reference standard, the secondary interpretation accuracy rate was 90.5%. The overall discrepancy rates by examination types were 28.3% for CT, 31.2% for MRI, 32.7% for oncologic imaging, 43.8% for body imaging, 39.9% for breast imaging, 34.0% for musculoskeletal imaging, 23.8% for neuroradiologic imaging, 35.5% for pediatric imaging, and 19.7% for trauma imaging. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Most widely studied in the context of oncology, imaging secondary interpretations commonly result in discrepant interpretations that are management changing and more accurate than initial interpretations. Policymakers should consider these findings as they consider the value of, and payment for, secondary imaging interpretations.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to investigate county-level geographic patterns of mammographic screening uptake throughout the United States and to determine the impact of rural versus urban settings on breast cancer screening uptake. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:This descriptive study used County Health Rankings (CHR) data to identify the percentage of Medicare enrollees 67-69 years old per county who had at least one mammogram in 2013 or 2012 (uptake). Uptake was matched with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Atlas of Rural and Small Town America categorizations along a rural-urban continuum scale from 1 to 9 based on county population size (large urban, population ≥ 20,000 people; small urban, < 20,000 people) and proximity to a metropolitan area. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS:In all, 2,243,294 Medicare beneficiaries were eligible for mammograms. National mean uptake per county was 60.5% (range, 26.0-86.0%). Uptake was significantly higher in metropolitan and large urban counties in 25 states and lower in only one. County-level mammographic uptake was moderately positively correlated with percentage of residents with some college education (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) and moderately negatively correlated with age-adjusted mortality (r = -0.41, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that percentage of white and black residents and age-adjusted mortality rate were the strongest significant independent predictors of uptake. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Uptake of mammographic screening services in a Medicare population varies widely at the county level and is generally lowest in rural counties and urban counties with fewer than 20,000 people.

Multiparametric MR imaging provides detailed anatomic assessment of the prostate as well as information that allows the detection and characterization of prostate cancer. To obtain high-quality MR imaging of the prostate, radiologists must understand sequence optimization to overcome commonly encountered technical challenges. This review discusses the techniques that are used in state-of-the-art MR imaging of the prostate, including imaging protocols, hardware considerations, and important aspects of patient preparation, with an emphasis on the recommendations provided in the prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 guidelines.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:As federal legislation increasingly influences health care delivery, the impact of election funding has grown. We aimed to characterize US radiologist federal political contributions over recent years. METHODS:After obtaining 2003 to 2016 finance data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), we extracted contribution data for all self-identified radiologists. Contributions were classified by recipient group and FEC-designated political party and then analyzed temporally and geographically, in aggregate, and by individual radiologist. RESULTS:Between 2003 and 2016, the FEC reported 35,408,584 political contributions. Of these, 36,474 (totaling $16,255,099) were from 7,515 unique self-identified radiologists. Total annual radiologist contributions ranged from $480,565 in 2005 to $1,867,120 in 2012. On average, 1,697 radiologists made political contributions each year (range 903 in 2005 to 2,496 in 2016). On average, contributing radiologists gave $2,163 ± $4,053 (range $10-$121,836) over this time, but amounts varied considerably by state (range $865 in Utah to $4,325 in Arkansas). Of all radiologist dollars, 76.3% were nonpartisan, with only 14.8% to Republicans, 8.5% to Democrats, and 0.4% to others. Most radiologist dollars went to political action committees (PACs) rather than candidates (74.6% versus 25.4%). Those PAC dollars were overwhelmingly (92.5%) directed to the Radiology Political Action Committee (RADPAC), which saw self-identified radiologist contributions grow from $351,251 in 2003 to $1,113,966 in 2016. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Radiologist federal political contributions have increased over 3-fold in recent years. That growth overwhelmingly represents contributions to RADPAC. Despite national political polarization, the overwhelming majority of radiologist political contributions are specialty-focused and nonpartisan.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate transgender patient care, gender inclusivity, and transgender health-related policies at breast imaging facilities across the United States. METHODS:A survey on breast imaging facilities' policies and practices regarding transgender care was distributed to the membership of the Society of Breast Imaging, consisting of approximately 2,500 breast radiologists across the United States. The survey was conducted by e-mail in January 2018. RESULTS:There were 144 survey respondents. Responses showed that 78.5% of facilities have gender-neutral patient bathrooms, 9.0% have a separate waiting area for transgender patients, and 76.4% do not have dominant pink hues in their facilities, although 54.2% have displays with female gender content. Also, 58.0% of intake forms do not ask patients to provide their gender identity, although 25.9% automatically populate with female phrases. Within the electronic health record, 32.9% lack a distinct place to record patients' preferred names and 54.9% lack a distinct place to record patients' gender pronouns. The majority (73.4%) do not have explicit policies related to the care of transgender patients. Only 14.7% of facilities offer lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender training. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our national survey demonstrates that many breast imaging facilities do not have structures in place to consistently use patients' preferred names and pronouns, nor provide inclusive environments for transgender patients. All breast imaging facilities should recognize the ways in which their practices may intensify discrimination, exclusivity, and stigma for transgender patients and should seek to improve their transgender health competencies and foster more inclusive environments.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess trends in inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement and retrieval procedures in Medicare beneficiaries over the last two decades. METHODS:Using Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1994 through 2015, we calculated utilization rates for IVC filter placement and retrieval procedures in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Services were stratified by provider specialty group and site of service. RESULTS:IVC filter placement rates increased from 1994 to 2008 (from 65.0 to 202.1 per 100,000 beneficiaries, compound annual growth rate [CAGR] +8.4%) and then decreased to 128.9 by 2015 (CAGR -6.2%). This decrease was observed across all specialty groups and sites of service. From 1994 to 2015, placement procedure market share increased for radiologists (from 45.1% to 62.7%) and cardiologists (from 2.5% to 6.7%) but decreased for surgeons (from 46.6% to 27.9%). Overall, procedures shifted slightly from the inpatient (from 94.5% to 86.5% of all procedures) to outpatient hospital (from 4.9% to 14.9%) settings. Between 2012 and 2015, retrieval rates increased from 12.0 to 17.7 (CAGR +13.9%). Retrievals as a percentage of placement procedures were similar across specialties in 2015 (range 13.0%-13.8%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite prior dramatic growth, the utilization of IVC filters in Medicare beneficiaries markedly declined over the last decade, likely relating to evolving views regarding efficacy and long-term safety. This decline was accompanied by several filter-related market shifts, including increasing placement by radiologists and cardiologists, increasing outpatient placement procedures, and increasing retrieval rates.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess geographic variation in gender disparities in the US radiologist workforce. METHODS:Gender, location, and practice affiliation of all radiologists and gender of all nonradiologists were identified for all providers listed in the Medicare Physician Compare database. Variation in female representation among radiologists was summarized at state, county, and individual practice levels, and associations with a variety of county-level population characteristics were explored. RESULTS:Nationally, 23.1% (7,501 of 32,429) of all radiologists were women versus 46.6% (481,831 of 1,034,909) of Medicare-participating nonradiologists. At the state level, female representation among radiologists was overall highest in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions (Washington DC, 39.3%; Massachusetts, 34.3%; Maryland, 31.5%) and lowest in the West and Midwest (Wyoming, 9.0%; Montana, 10.7%; Idaho, 11.7%). At the county level, female representation varied from 0.0% to 100.0%, with weak positive correlations with county-level population (r = +0.39), median household income (r = +0.25), college education (r = +0.23), English nonproficiency (r = +0.21), mammography screening rates (r = +0.12), Democratic voting in the 2016 presidential election (r = +0.28), and weak negative correlation with county-level rural population percentage (r = -0.32). Among practices with ≥10 members, female representation varied greatly (0.0% to 100.0%). Female representation was higher among academic (32.3%) than nonacademic (20.6%) radiologists, and in states with higher female-to-male relative earnings (r = +0.556). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Compared with nonradiologists, women are underrepresented in the national radiologist workforce. This underrepresentation is highly variable at state, county, and practice levels and is partially explained by a variety of demographic, socioeconomic, and political factors. These insights could help inform and drive initiatives to reduce gender disparities and more actively engage women in the specialty.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess changing utilization of pre-biopsy prostate MRI in Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Men undergoing prostate biopsy were identified in 5% Medicare Research Identifiable Files from October 2010 through September 2015. Rates of pre-biopsy prostate MRI (any pelvic MRI ≤6 months before biopsy with a prostate indication diagnosis code) were assessed. Temporal changes and variation by geography and among populations were determined. RESULTS:In male Medicare beneficiaries, pre-biopsy MRI utilization rates increased from 0.1% in 2010 to 0.7% in 2011, 1.2% in 2012, 2.9% in 2013, 4.7% in 2014, and 10.3% in 2015. In 2015, pre-biopsy prostate MRI rates varied significantly by patient age (5.7% for >80 years vs. 8.4%-9.3% for other age ranges, p=0.040), race (5.8% in blacks vs. 10.1% in whites, p=0.009), and geographic region (from 6.3% in the Midwest to 12.5% in the Northeast; p<0.001). Rates were highest in Wyoming (25.0%), New York (23.7%), and Minnesota (20.5%), but <1% in ten states. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Historic Medicare claims provide novel insights into dramatically increasing adoption of MRI prior to prostate biopsy. Following earlier minimal usage, utilization increased sharply beginning in 2013, exceeding 10% in 2015. However, substantial racial and geographic variation in adoption exists. Continued educational, research, and policy efforts are warranted to optimize the role of pre-biopsy MRI and minimize sociodemographic and geographic disparities.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To explore variation in downstream relative costs associated with ovarian cysts incidentally detected on ultrasound. METHODS:For 200 consecutive incidental ovarian cysts on ultrasound, ultrasound reports were classified in terms of presence of a radiologist recommendation for additional imaging. All downstream events (imaging, office visits, and surgery) associated with the cysts were identified from the electronic health record. Medical costs associated with these downstream events were estimated using national Medicare rates. Average cost per cyst was stratified by various factors; cost ratios were computed among subgroups. RESULTS:Average costs per cyst were 1.9 times greater in postmenopausal than premenopausal women. Relative to when follow-up imaging was neither recommended nor obtained, costs were 1.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was recommended but not obtained, 5.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was both recommended and obtained, and 8.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was obtained despite not being recommended. Costs were 2.5 times greater when the radiologist underrecommended follow-up compared with Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) guidelines for management of ovarian cysts, 3.0 times greater when the ordering physician overmanaged compared with the radiologist's recommendation, as well as 1.7 times and 3.8 times greater when the ordering physician undermanaged and overmanaged compared with SRU guidelines, respectively. Four ovarian neoplasms, although no ovarian malignancy, were diagnosed in the cohort. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Follow-up costs for incidental ovarian cysts are highly variable based on a range of factors. Radiologist recommendations may contribute to lower costs among patients receiving follow-up imaging. Such recommendations should reflect best practices and support the follow-up that will be of likely greatest value for patient care.